If someone with almost zero natural talent for distance running decided to commit to hard work and put in the miles, how fast could they get over 5k / 10k / HM / marathon by running:
50mpw?
75mpw?
100mpw?
If someone with almost zero natural talent for distance running decided to commit to hard work and put in the miles, how fast could they get over 5k / 10k / HM / marathon by running:
50mpw?
75mpw?
100mpw?
If they're capable of running 50, 75, or 100 mpw they do have talent. Their talent is durability.
All this talent talk is overblown. Talent is the difference between 2:10 and 2:15. It is NOT the difference between 2:10 and 2:30 as so many seem to think.
We're still debating on what zero talent is. I know a dude who went into freshmen year who ran like 4:30 in the 800M. When I ran my 800M race, I was literally going more than twice as fast as him. Is this zero talent? Zero talent is a hard to put a number on.
I knew one dude who was chubby and didn't do XC till Junior year. He managed to crank his mileage up to 60 miles a week and get under 10 in the 2 mile. 80 miles a week got him 15:45 in a track 5K. I believe he was a general baseline for what a person with "no talent" was. Still a very broad term.
Genetics is the most important determinant of running ability, and every individual has a unique genetic potential. The phrase "almost zero natural talent" doesn't tell us anything about where you stand on the talent spectrum except that you aren't fast. There's no way that anyone here can assess your talent level over the internet and tell you how fast you have the potential to be. However, the amount of training required to approach one's genetic potential is much less than most people believe - you don't have to run 100mpw to reach it.
Most people despise this notion, but to reiterate, talent is BY FAR the biggest factor in running performance - the details of one's training training program are practically irrelevant by comparison. This is true at ALL ability levels - it isn't a concept that applies only to the elite.
that is false, you are a chode.
lkjvgt wrote:
All this talent talk is overblown. Talent is the difference between 2:10 and 2:15. It is NOT the difference between 2:10 and 2:30 as so many seem to think.
It's very easy to identify young runners who have loads of talent because it shows itself in their performances. But it's not so easy to identify the opposite, young runners with not so much talent. This is because you're trying to see something based on what you have not seen. You have not seen great performances so you try to deduce that that person has no talent. This is completely wrong thinking. Unless you see someone work with commitment for years and years then you cannot accurately say that they have little talent because there is always the possibility that there is something that you have not yet seen. Similarly, you cannot look at the young runner who has shown great talent and accurately assess how far he has left to go.
What times do you think runners at the bottom end of the talent spectrum have the potential to achieve? Assuming subjects are healthy, no issues with height & weight, in their 20s and have a solid training program
Crap genetics wrote:
What times do you think runners at the bottom end of the talent spectrum have the potential to achieve? Assuming subjects are healthy, no issues with height & weight, in their 20s and have a solid training program
Just like with talent, there is a spectrum for the quality of height, weight, nutrition, age, training, and everything else that goes into a running performance. It is useless to try to get an accurate read on where talent can take you if you're speaking about these other important factors in very general terms. If you want a specific answer you must give specific information. What you have given is some very general information and some contradictory information. That will get you a few sarcastic answers and a thread full of name calling.